In February, 2014, Judge John G. Heyburn II of the Federal Western District of Kentucky struck down a portion of Kentucky's ban on gay couples in relation to the State's official recognition of gays married in other states.

Now, the State of Kentucky has revealed its argument against the recognition of out-of-state marriages for gay couples.

Quote:

"Kentucky's marriage laws are rationally related to the state's interest of preserving the traditional man-woman marriage model," the appeal reads. According to the state, the case for legalizing same-sex marriage in Kentucky is different from Loving v. Virginia—the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage—because "man-man and woman-woman couples cannot procreate" and Kentucky has an interest in encouraging procreation in the name of promoting "long-term economic stability through stable birth rates."

The state claims that marriage benefits cost the state money, and stable birth rates offset that cost. However, the appeal does not cite any research supporting this, nor does it provide any evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage decreases the birth rate. The appeal does not mention the economic impact of same-sex couples having children through alternative means, such as artificial insemination, nor does it address the costs to the state of allowing infertile heterosexual men or women to get married, allowing straight couples who don't want children to get married, or housing foster children. (In 2012, Kentucky had almost 7,000 children in foster care, according to the latest government data.)

What a truly absurd argument.

Quote:

"Kentucky already has a problem with perception throughout the country of being backward and ultra-conservative," notes Bourke, the plaintiff in the case. "Here was an opportunity for a Democratic governor to make a progressive move, and he chose to bow to political pressure instead."

Mark Twain has it attributed to him best:

Mark Twain wrote:

I want to be in Kentucky when the end of the world comes, because it's always 20 years behind

Were I a Kentuckian, I would be irritated at state resources being pissed away on such an obviously futile effort. Then again, if I were a Kentuckian I'd probably simply move to another state.

Trying to frame the issue in purely economic terms is an obvious losing strategy. Even if it were true I doubt (five members of) the current Supreme Court would accept the argument, and the fact that it's clearly false means it's outright irresponsible to try, wasting valuable court time on nothing. We all know that it's just a matter of time before homosexual marriage is implemented in all 50 states; the moment this was successfully framed as a rights issue, the outcome was inevitable.

Q. How do they separate the men from the boys at Kentucky?
A. With a restraining order.

Does Kentucky have some big problem with pedophilia or something? Because this just seems like a Greek joke with Kentucky randomly swapped in.

I'm thinking that version was originally about a particular school, going by the use of "at"(eg. "How do they separate the men from the boys at Harvard?"). And the compiler just changed the school to a state, without fixing the grammar.

Quote:

Q: Why did Kentucky raise the minimum drinking age to 25?

A: They wanted to keep alcohol out of the high schools!

This would actually work better for the USA as a whole, which DOES have the highest drinking age among countries that allow alcohol(as opposed to the fictional "25" in Kentucky), and a stereotype for having a dumb populace.

Anyways, I have no problem if a state wants to ban gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to legalize gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to ban or legalize marriage between cats and mules. I DO have a problem with a state not recognizing a legal marriage from another state. Full faith and credit.

Anyways, I have no problem if a state wants to ban gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to legalize gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to ban or legalize marriage between cats and mules. I DO have a problem with a state not recognizing a legal marriage from another state. Full faith and credit.

If marriage is conceived of as a right, then states banning gay marriage probably violates the 14th Amendment.

Anyways, I have no problem if a state wants to ban gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to legalize gay marriage. I have no problem if a state wants to ban or legalize marriage between cats and mules. I DO have a problem with a state not recognizing a legal marriage from another state. Full faith and credit.

If marriage is conceived of as a right, then states banning gay marriage probably violates the 14th Amendment.

Yes. Also the equal protection of the laws applies, also from the 14th Amendment.

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote in the ruling, which concluded that the state's ban violated the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The judge stayed the ruling pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, meaning same-sex weddings are not yet allowed in the state. However, Heyburn criticized Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) for arguing that the ban preserves the state's birth rate and therefore contributes to Kentucky's economic stability.

We all know that it's just a matter of time before homosexual marriage is implemented in all 50 states

Which is interesting because many people, including myself, feel that the government should have nothing to do with sanctifying a marriage amongst legal aged adults.

Purchasing a marriage "license"? I wonder how much revenue is taken in, from that alone.

I believe, marriage is between two people, before the eyes of god...or which ever higher power two people may recognize. Therefore, in many ways it is a religious matter...if religion is not involved, than it is a matter of personal commitments, possibly according to common law (which, would be interesting to define).

Therefore, who IS to say that one person cannot marry another (as long as it is not incest...common, there have to be limits), within sound judgment?

But then again, why should those who oppose the recognition of homosexual marriage, be forced to have their taxes be utilized in such matters?

Morals and money.

Let the people in each respective state vote on the matter (however, there has been quite the political and culture infiltration in states that were once traditional by nature but...now have changed sides. Culture and politics diffuse and it can wrongly damage those who are not represented in a manner befitting of a Republic).

Here is something to ruminate over...regarding the idea of "tolerance".

This is take from The Weekly Standard, May 19, 2014 edition from an article written by Terry Eastland, titled "Codes of Conduct"...

You can research the article for yourself but one thing, among many, stood out...(this is in regards to World Vision, known as "[i]one of the nation's best known Christian relief and development nonprofits and one of the world's largest charities"
[/i]

just as the nation's high-tech culture, symbolized by the place name Silicon Valley, which strongly favors same-sex marriage, did in forcing (albeit shamefully) the resignation of Brendan Eich, the chief executive officer of Mozilla. Eich's sin was that he made a donation in 2008 in support of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman